Rights group slams ‘unjust’ electricity tariff hike

RETHABILE MOHONO

MASERU – SECTION 2, a rights organization, has condemned the Lesotho Electricity Company’s (LEC) recent 9.6 percent tariff increase per kWh, which took effect on Tuesday. It has also criticized the Lesotho Electricity and Water Authority (LEWA) for approving the hike.

This was highlighted in a statement issued on Wednesday, SECTION 2, also known as Advocates for the Supremacy of the Constitution, described the tariff increase as “yet another blatant disregard for transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness.”

The LEC announced the new energy charges as follows: lifeline tariffs at 93 Lisente per kWh, domestic consumers at M2.08 per kWh, general-purpose customers at M2.34 per kWh, commercial and industrial LV consumers at 37 Lisente per kWh, HV consumers at 34 Lisente per kWh, and street lighting at M1.22 per kWh. Maximum demand charges now stand at M455.88 per M/kVa for LV customers and M390.30 per M/kVa for HV customers.

Defending the tariff adjustments, LEC stated: “These adjustments, which include customer and rural electrification levies, are necessary to maintain the sustainability of electricity supply while ensuring affordability for all consumers.”

The company also urged customers to “take note of these changes and manage their electricity consumption accordingly.” SECTION 2 also accused LEWA of neglecting its duty by approving the increase without requiring the LEC to submit its most recent audited financial statements.

“LEWA has failed the people of Lesotho by sanctioning these unjustified increases despite the absence of the most recent audited financial statements from the LEC,” SECTION 2 stated.

It further alleged that rather than safeguarding public interests, LEWA had aligned itself with an electricity supplier that lacks accountability.

“This is not regulation, it is collusion at the expense of Basotho,” the statement read adding that consumers are being forced to pay higher rates without assurance that the new tariffs accurately reflect LEC’s operational costs.

“LEWA’s failure to demand transparency before approving these hikes is an abdication of its responsibility and a betrayal of public trust. The authority is supposed to protect consumers, not rubber-stamp exploitative pricing mechanisms,” the statement continued.

SECTION 2 also criticized LEWA for using public funds to defend a legal challenge against the tariffs in the high court.

“LEWA is proving that it does not prioritize the welfare of Basotho but rather serves to shield LEC from scrutiny. If institutions like LEWA continue to dismiss legitimate grievances, public frustration will inevitably rise.”

The organization warned that a continued lack of faith in due process could have serious consequences.

“Those in power must recognize that when the governed become disillusioned with the system, they will seek alternative ways to be heard,” it said.

However, SECTION 2 urges Basotho to remain committed to nonviolent resistance.

In 2023, LEC submitted a Multi-Year Tariff Review Application to LEWA, requesting a 23 percent increase in 2023/2024, followed by 15 percent hikes in the next two years. Section 2 was invited by LEWA to provide feedback during a stakeholder consultation meeting in February 2024.

Upon reviewing the application, SECTION 2 discovered that LEC had provided audited financial statements only up to March 31, 2022, instead of the required 2023 financial records. The group argued that the absence of up-to-date financial statements made it impossible to assess the justification for the tariff hikes.

“The accurate determination of the cost of sales necessitates recourse to audited financial statements for the antecedent year,” SECTION 2 stated.

The group then took legal action against LEWA, arguing that approving the tariff hikes without the latest financial records lacked a rational foundation and violated principles of procedural fairness. The case is now before the High Court’s Commercial Division, with a ruling expected on May 26.

“We filed this case in the Commercial Division to not only challenge LEWA’s decision but also to reaffirm that the High Court, in all its divisions, has unlimited original jurisdiction under Section 119 of the Constitution.”